Read on, Oh wise one. "Lauren F. Nowlin" wrote:
Thanks for your update Steve and to Alex for getting the ball rolling.
ONYX would also like to see this change implemented.
The model the AADS team uses is far superior to any other scheme to 'monitor' interactions between peers at the PVC level. Hands-off full mesh build is the easiest to activate rapidly without botched PVCs trickling in one-by-one or stuck in a random queue of a departed employee..
In a large corporation, individualistic details can get lost in the broad scope of things. Rate Cap'ing is wonderful thing, IMHO, as long as you have -adequate- resources to respond to the individual granularity of the dynamics of the -real- flows. Ahhh... Therein lies the caveat, eh ? :\ The best laid plans of mice and men......
The PeerMaker method is too human intensive for little to no gain from an operational sense. A negative if you can't use the capacity for fear of artificial caps being exceeded with other peers, which is the case noted below.
Great minds..... :)
Also, I've never understood why PBNAP PVC build requests between two customers - approved by both customers - have to be sent to PacBell Marketing for approval...
Didn't they, in the old days, need to clear "tarriffing rules" out there ? Dereg was young....and some states had differing (read complex) regs. I know we had a - mess - with it.... Just my .02 Richard